Re: Steve Carroll proves he cannot understand what he reads. Again.

"Steve Carroll" <trollkiller@xxxxxx> stated in post
trollkiller-6F9FD7.20450204062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/4/08 7:45 PM:

In article <C46C9A57.BDF83%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Steve Carroll" <trollkiller@xxxxxx> stated in post
trollkiller-58B62B.19554804062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/4/08 6:55 PM:

In article <C46C8549.BDF35%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"John" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
aOOdnSLVFZoMr9rVnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/4/08 5:25 PM:

...
But I note that his judgment has improved of late as seen by the fact
that
he seems willing to let you argue his case all alone Snit! LOL



I only argue with SANE people Wally!!!

The facts are simple:

Yup, and they show that both you and John are "very, very" confused.

You think John is *wrong*

I "think" John is "very, very" confused. I *know* John is "*wrong*" with
one of his statements:

John initially wrote:
"Steve has an unsupported eSata card in his machine for one thing".

Then John wrote:
"As usual your full of shit. I merely stated that Steve was the type of
idiot who would install unsupported hardware IN ONE of his machines".


I also *know* you are "*wrong*" with one of your contradictory
statements... as shown here...

You wrote:
"John responded to a comment about "Macs" by referencing a specific
Mac".

You also wrote:
"That John's reply to the comment about "Macs" does not specify
what Mac he means... only that it is a subset of "Macs" of Steve de
Mena".

So which statement do you "actually" believe is accurate? Did John "not
specify what Mac he means"? Or was he "referencing a specific Mac", as
you claimed? Are you so stoned you don't realize these statements are
contradictory?

From a past post to you:

-----
If I note, for example, that there is only one planet in our
solar system with known life but fail to specify which one
then I have noted a single element in the set "planets".. and
element which is *specified* by one characteristic but *not*
specified by its name or other characteristics.

In the same way John referenced a "machine" in the set "Macs"
which was specified by a characteristic but *not* by model or
name or any other characteristic than the *one* he mentioned.

You, of course, insist that you and your co-trolls can speak
for John and determine for him which element he meant... and
then you specified an element of the set that was unlikely to
have the specified characteristic!

This would be like you noting that one planet in the solar
system has life on it and me insisting you are wrong because
you *must* mean Saturn and it has no know life!

...

Reading the above do you see where an element in a set can be
specified by one characteristic but unspecified by others. I
bet not! I bet you repeat your ignorant accusation even
after the conclusions your lack of reading comprehension and
undying hatred lead you to claim to believe!
-----

Notice how I was 100% right about you repeating your ignorant accusations!

As noted, John referenced an element of the set "Macs". You made an
irrational assumption as to what machine was meant.

False, my assumption, like Tim's, was rational because it's based on the
context of the conversation. Up until the point in time that John made
the statement that used the term "his machine", the only "machine" that
had been spoken of was Steve DeMena's MBP. Context is the key here...
which is a big reason you are so confused;)

Fact: You stated that John was "referencing a specific Mac" when he
responded to a comment about "Macs":

"John responded to a comment about "Macs" by referencing a specific
Mac".

What was "specific" about the "Mac" John was allegedly "referencing"?

Alan Baker:
Steve [de Mena], you have had more problems in the last six
months with Macs than all the Macs at all the clients I've
worked for over that same stretch of time.
John:
Steve has an unsupported eSata card in his machine for one
thing. No telling what else he foolishly installs without
proper drivers being present.

What was specific was the characteristic of having an "unsupported eSata
card"... and you, not John, concluded that characteristic specified a Mac
Power Book, but one element in the set "Macs" to which John's comments were
in response to.

Funny how *you* made the assumption that John had specified the MPB when it
is *you* who repeatedly is doing so.


--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)





.

Relevant Pages

  • OT: Too much comedy... a summary.
    ... Steve, you have had more problems in the last six ... months with Macs than all the Macs at all the clients I've ... John wasn't replying to this. ... "Even Steve remarks on the fact you can't put an eSATA card into a MBP". ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Snits argument preserved - act 2
    ... is what John would have said if he subscribed to Steve's ... maybe - Steve will seek the help he needs. ... people believe him or, at the least, question those he targets. ... Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Steve Carroll proves he cannot understand what he reads. Again.
    ... Steve, you have had more problems in the last six ... months with Macs than all the Macs at all the clients I've ... John made an *allegation* of an unsupported card. ... using that term he was referencing Steve DeMena's "machine. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: 10.5.3 Released
    ... BEFORE that he had multiple Macs. ... by Steve deMena. ... wasn't, as evidenced by John subsequently clarifying his original, half ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)